this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
552 points (94.7% liked)

News

23300 readers
3868 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

JK Rowling has challenged Scotland's new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.

The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

She said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.

Earlier, Scotland's first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a "rising tide of hatred".

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.

Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 49 points 7 months ago (11 children)

Her opinion on trans folks is shit, but people should not go to jail for shit opinions. Broken clock and stuff.

[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 61 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's more complicated than that. Like saying there is a fire in a theatre when there is none, saying transgender are undercover perverts and a danger to society when it's not supported by evidence will get people killed. Freedom of speech is great and all but when your lie and put people in danger there should be consequences.

[–] saintshenanigans@programming.dev 20 points 7 months ago (22 children)

And just for the record, this is not a theory. People HAVE been murdered.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 52 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

Have as many opinions as you want, but if you spread shit like "we should exterminate the lesser races" and "trans people are rapists" you earn a vacation at the greybar hotel for abusing your right of free speech to infringe on other people's rights.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

And she won't. This is the same performative bullshit Jordan Peterson pulled in Canada.

[–] TheEntity@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago (4 children)

People shouldn't go to jail for shit opinions, I agree. That changes when their opinions become more than opinions.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

She grossly misinterprets what the law is meant to achieve. It's not for somebody who dead names a trans person or calls a trans woman he or him. It's when someone Tweets out "Who will rid me of this troublesome trans person?" and then their one or more of their followers goes out and beats or murders that person.

[–] saintshenanigans@programming.dev 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I swear every single person arguing against this bill hasn't read it.

The gist of it is consolidating existing hate crime laws, adding sexual orientation and gender to the protected classes, repealing the law of blasphemy, and then the main one people are on about, outlawing "inciting hate" and spending several entire pages defining exactly what that means and how its still covered by freedom of expression.

As you said, you can use the slurs. You can be a shit person.

What this seems to be addressing is the fact that ANYBODY can have a platform nowadays and some of those people use their platform to harm other people, whether indirectly or not.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You should maybe read the law.

Part 2 Section 3, 32: [...] It provides that it is an offence for a person to behave in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner, or communicate threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

It's talking about likely consequence not after a crime has been committed. Also:

Part 2 Section 5, 47: Section 5(1) creates an offence of possession of racially inflammatory material. It provides that it is an offence for a person to have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person, with either the intention to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or where it is likely that, if the material were communicated, hatred will be stirred up against such a group.

Which makes possession of inflammatory material an offence. Which is rather murky on it's own, but even more so in digital age.

Later it quite literally defines on which terms it's permissive to discuss sexual orientation or religion.

To be fair, maybe I missed something so feel free to correct me:

https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s5-bills/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill/introduced/explanatory-notes-hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-bill.pdf

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was using hyperbole but the intention is the same. If you use a public platform to intentionally cause harm to another person by way of their race, nationality, sexual identity, or other specificity then you have committed a crime.

What you clearly missed was the point of the law. Hate speech isn't about saying what you want about another person, it's about using your speech to directly or indirectly harm another person or group of people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Lots of people just don't know what freedom is speech actually means. Speech isn't a crime, but crimes can be committed by speaking.

If you kill someone with a hammer, you aren't charged with possession of hammer - you're charged with murder. If you hire a hitman to do the killing instead, you aren't charged with "using speech."

When that theoretical person is arrested for "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they aren't actually being arrested for their speech or their words, but for a separate crime that uses speech as a mechanism.

Speech is a marvelous thing that should be protected, but freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of using speech to commit other crimes.

[–] zerog_bandit@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Can you explain to me then, what exactly is freedom of speech? Yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't using speech then, it's assault on other persons by threatening harm. Criticize the government? That's not freedom of speech, that's just unlicensed protest. Sing a song protesting a war? You go to jail for treason.

Freedom of speech absolutely means being free from the government imposing consequences for speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater comes from Schenck v United States which found that speech must pose a clear and present danger to be able to be held criminally liable for it. And Brandenburg v Ohio narrowed the definition even further, that speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

Despite our views on JK's abhorrent rhetoric, you cannot say that mis-gendering trans people is inciting imminent lawlessness.

Your comment demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You quoted cases that literally demonstrate my point.

It's not the word "fire" that is the crime. It's speech as a mechanism by which lawlessness or panic is incited.

Hate-speech is more nuanced, but can follow a similar pattern.

Take the sentance: "It's time to cut down the tall trees." The words themselves are fairly innocuous. But that was the trigger phrase for the Rwandan Genocide. Saying those words on the air was a call to murder all the Tutsi people. Speaking those words on the radio was not an act of free expression by the Interhamwe, but the start of a barbaric hate crime that killed nearly a million people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I, for one, get angry at big gubment limiting my free spech to call people slurs at home depot just like how I get angry at big government for limiting my god given right to come and go as I please when I break into people's houses and watch them sleep.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 23 points 7 months ago (11 children)

Hateful ideas can be dangerous things. This is why insulting people in Germany can turn into a criminal offense. They know where that goes if left unchecked.

Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail. It can just be a fine the first few times and jail only when you show no intent on ceasing what you're doing.

JKR is being hyperbolic with this "arrest me" thing. She's playing the victim for her TERF followers.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Also, remember, not every country is the USA where breaking the law = going to jail.

If you're poor and black, sure.

Notice how many times Trump has flagrantly broken the law.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MadBigote@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can weaponize an opinion, that is what is getting punished.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Where you draw the line? And who is drawing it? Will you be equally happy when conservatives will use the same tools against opinions they see as dangerous?

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (14 children)

I think the line is being drawn at "don't sympathize with ~~terrorist groups~~ an opressive theocratic government" (publicly stating "at least the taliban know what a woman is") and "don't directly fund hate groups".

(Edited, see comment below)

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 7 months ago (13 children)

The line was drawn by Western governments that all agreed gender identity is a protected group of people. Stop trying to pick apart policies that protect people at the cost of bigots' freeze peach. Free speech is the ability to criticize your government without going to jail for it. It is not meant to protect your right to trash minorities.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] MadBigote@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Who draws it? The government?!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Slippery slope fallacy "You're okay with the government saying certain ingredients can't go in food? Where does that stop? Will you be equally happy when a government you disagree with uses the same tools to dictate everything that goes in your food?"

"You're okay with the government saying certain areas are off limits to the general public? Where do you draw the line? Will you be equally happy when a different government uses the same tools to forbid you from leaving your home?"

Is this specific step reasonable? Then it's okay. When they try to take an unreasonable step then it is appropriate to do something about it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] seriousconsideration@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

What does the broken clock analogy have to do with Joanne being a bigot?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)